iEntry 10th Anniversary RSS Newsletter Advertising
Visit Twellow.com
Text: Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size | Print Print Article | Share: Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Post to Twitter Post to Facebook
8 commentsThursday, September 4, 2008

Facebook Ads Rubbing Some the Wrong Way

Including Advertisers

FacebookYesterday I posted an article on SmallBusinessNewz about targeted ads insulting customers, in which I referenced a Washington Post story from writer Rachel Beckman.

Her story, which has been the subject of a lot of discussion around the web, is basically about targeted ads appearing to her on Facebook, calling her fat. One ad in particular suggests that she has a "muffin top." She also cited other offending ads, but her point was that she feels insulted by some of the ads that Facebook has chosen to display to her.

Muffin Top AdBeckman's story has gotten pretty popular on Digg, where one user comments, "Muffin top sounds better than, chick with roll of fat pouring out of her too tight pants." Others simply just suggest ad blocking. Should you have to block all ads in order to not be insulted though? I'm not going to delve too deep into why insulting ads are in poor taste. I already wrote that article. I'll just say the fact that they are targeted at specific people makes them a little more sensitive than if they were not personalized.

I received an interesting comment  from Alan at AffiliateConfession, however, that puts a different spin on the story. He says that while insulting ads like the "muffin top" one are "far from the norm", advertisers themselves are also unhappy with Facebook's ad system.

Our frustration comes from trying to get ads approved these days. Facebook rejects nearly everything you throw at them unless is adheres to some very narrow criteria. Couple that with the fact that no two editors interpret guidelines the same and the Facebook Ad system turns into a joke. You can submit the exact same ads at different times of the day and have one editor disapprove it and the next one approve it.

There are even cases where advertisers spending more than $100k have had previously approved ads turned off without so much as an email or a phone call from FB. What media company in their right mind disses a $100k spender?

Alan explores this subject more in an interesting post on his blog. This is just one man's critique however. Having never spent ad money with Facebook personally, I am curious as to whether or not others are commonly having similar problems.

About the author:
Chris Crum has been a part of the WebProNews team and the iEntry Network of B2B Publications since 2003. Twitter: @CCrum237

Agreed

I have a 1k budget per day with Facebook and I have the exact same problems. No ad is accepted the same way, you could even get semi-pornographic images accepted by some of the editors. It just isn't consistent at all.

RE:

That's interesting.

Publish A Comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
15 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
SEARCH












Subscribe to WebProNews


Send me relevant info